► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Bill Clinton’ Category

Guest Post: Bill Clinton back in the News again for sexual misconduct

by coldwarrior ( 148 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton, Corruption, Open thread at January 6th, 2015 - 1:09 pm

From Dorian’s The Wilderness of Mirrors:

Serial rapist Bill Clinton back in the News again for sexual misconduct.

In 1998 Bill Clinton infamously used his position as the most powerful man on earth to crush criminal investigations into accusations that he was a serial rapist. Those accusations dated all the way back to the 1970’s when he was Governor of Arkansas. Will Bill Clinton ever be held accountable? Not bloody likely. But now with the recent revelations regarding Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton’s close association and frequent visits to sexual slavery paradise being brought to light, perhaps people will start to rethink exactly who and what Bill Clinton really is.

Bill Clinton Is an Alleged Rapist, Too. Why Aren’t You Outraged About That?

Yes, that’s the one. Remember him? Bill Clinton. Former President of the United States, possibly future First Husband of the United States? Ring a bell? You know the guy — the one who remains a beloved figure in American liberalism? An elder statesman of the Democrat Party? The dude who shows up to fundraise for Democratic congressional candidates? The man who continues to enjoy enormous popularity even after his presidency? Yeah, that guy. He was President. The actual President of the United States.

The President of the United States who was credibly accused of rape, assault, and sexual harassment by numerous women over a period of many years. Forget Monica Lewinsky. I’m talking about Juanita Broaddrick, who recounted the incident to Dateline in 1999, saying ‘[Clinton] turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him ‘no.’ . . . He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip. . . . And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him ‘no.’ . . . He wouldn’t listen to me.’

And Paula Jones, who most Americans remembers as ‘That Woman Who Had Something To Do With The Monica Lewinsky Thing Or Something,’ won an out of court settlement from Clinton after accusing him of summoning her to his hotel room one night and, right there with his security detail standing by, dropping his pants and exposing himself.

As horrifying as it sounds, from the 70′s all the way through the 90′s and possibly beyond, college students, secretaries, interns, and others, all tell stories of sexual violence at the hands (or other body parts) of Bill Clinton. The Clinton machine went to work in each case, with the active help of Hillary ‘The Champion For Women’s Rights’ Clinton, smearing, intimidating, blackmailing and bribing the accusers into silence. And you’re telling me Bill Cosby is the bigger story?

Jeffrey Epstein is a convicted serial sexual predator, and once a very close confidant of Bill Clinton. Jeffry is now being investigated for allegations that he kept under-aged girls captive and exploited them as sexual slaves. there is also documented evidence that Bill Clinton visited the very same island resort multiple times where Jeffrey Epstein was reputed to have kept these under-aged sexual slaves, and the Bill Clinton’s multiple visits took place during the period of time that Jeffrey Epstein was keeping those under-aged girls there as sexual slaves.

Given the nature of the allegations against Jeffrey Epstein, and the evidence that Bill Clinton was in fact visiting Epstein’s infamous sexual slavery paradise island any honest rational individual must ask themselves, how do Bill Clintons previous allegations of sexual misconduct look in this light?

Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had ‘regular’ orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited multiple times

A new lawsuit has revealed the extent of former President Clinton’s friendship with a fundraiser who was later jailed for having sex with an underage prostitute.

Bill Clinton’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who served time in 2008 for his illegal sexual partners, included up multiple trips to the onetime billionaire’s private island in the Caribbean where underage girls were allegedly kept as sex slaves.

The National Enquirer has released new details about the two men’s friendship, which seems to have ended abruptly around the time of Epstein’s arrest.
Naming names: A lawsuit between Jeffrey Epstein (right) and his legal team has included multiple mentions about the convicted pedophile’s connection to former President Bill Clinton (left)

Naming names: A lawsuit between Jeffrey Epstein (right, in 2011) and his legal team has included multiple mentions about the convicted pedophile’s connection to former President Bill Clinton (left, earlier this month)

Naming names: A lawsuit between Jeffrey Epstein (right, in 2011) and his legal team has included multiple mentions about the convicted pedophile’s connection to former President Bill Clinton (left, earlier this month)

Pedophile paradise: The lawsuit included flight records that showed Clinton made multiple trips to Epstein’s private island, Little St James (pictured), between 2002 and 2005. Women were reportedly kept there as sex slaves

Pedophile paradise: The lawsuit included flight records that showed Clinton made multiple trips to Epstein’s private island, Little St James (pictured), between 2002 and 2005. Women were reportedly kept there as sex slaves

Tales of orgies and young girls being shipped to the island, called Little St. James, have been revealed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between Epstein and his former lawyers Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards.

It is unclear what the basis of the suit is, but they go on to call witness testimony from some of the frequent guests at Epstein’s island to talk about the wild parties that were held there in the early 2000s.
Convicted: Epstein was investigated in 2005 after a woman reported that he paid her 14-year-old daughter for sex

Convicted: Epstein was investigated in 2005 after a woman reported that he paid her 14-year-old daughter for sex

Flight logs pinpoint Clinton’s trips on Epstein’s jet between the years 2002 and 2005, while he was working on his philanthropic post-presidential career and while his wife Hillary was a Senator for their adopted state of New York.

‘I remember asking Jeffrey what’s Bill Clinton doing here kind fo thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me a favor,’ one unidentified woman said in the lawsuit, which was filed in Palm Beach Circuit Court.

The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and she recalled two young girls from New York who were always seen around the five-house compound but their personal backstories were never revealed.

At least one woman on the compound was there unwillingly, as the suit identifies a woman as Jane Doe 102.

She ‘was forced to live as one of Epstein’s underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with… politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc,’ the lawsuit says according to The Enquirer.

Epstein’s sexual exploits have been documented since 2005, when a woman in Palm Beach contacted police saying that her 14-year-old daughter had been paid $300 to massage him and then have sex.

The claim prompted a nearly year-long investigation that led to the eventual charge of soliciting prostitution which came as part of a plea deal. He spent 13 months of a 18-month sentence in jail and remains a registered sex offender.

Hillary Clinton is convinced that it is her turn to be President of the United States of America, and there is nothing in Heaven or Earth that will dissuade her that she does not have that right. All the evidence however suggests that she is and always has been aware of Bill’s serial sexual predator status. More importantly, that she was actively involved in protecting him from the legal consequences of his actions. Does a woman who aided and abetted a serial rapist to avoid prosecution deserve to be President of the United States of America?

If you happen to be a Democrat, the answer to that question is absolutely. American Democrats have become notable in the last 40 years for their complete and total lack of anything even remotely resembling morality. They have but one single driving motivating impulse, that is, to win at any cost. The End Justifies the Means. They willfully entered into a state of public denial that Bill Clinton committed perjury and that he used his position as President of the United States to subordinate justice.

The leap from supporting a serial rapist as President of the United States to supporting someone who aided and abetted a serial rapist to avoid prosecution is actually a rather small one. It does on the other hand bring to an incredible degree of clarity just how morally bankrupt and corrupt the Democrat Party has become. A party that would literally nominate, and elect the devil himself if they though he would win and further their Marxist agenda.

No this is not an attempt to shame democrats into doing what is right, that hasn’t been possible in at least 40 years. These are just general observations on the complete lack of morality of the Clinton’s and corrupt nature of the Democrat Party as a whole.

Mars Presents: From the American Thinker “The Left’s Base Motive: Vengeance”

by Mars ( 120 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Bigotry, Bill Clinton, Blogmocracy, Communism, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Education, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hillary Clinton, Hipsters, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Media, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism, Tranzis at January 5th, 2015 - 8:00 am


This article presents a very well written analysis of something I’ve been trying to put together in my head for some time now. I’ve mentioned many times the lefts drive for vengeance in everything they do. They never grew out of the stage where they are trying to get even with everyone for some imagined slight in their past. I would go so far as to say that the difference from liberals and conservatives is that conservatives learned to “get over it” where liberals were taught they were precious little flowers and how dare they be treated that way. Anyway, for your enlightenment I am presenting this article from American Thinker. I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did. And dreads what it portends for the next two years.

January 2, 2015
The Left’s Base Motive: Vengeance
By J.R. Dunn

American leftism has gotten an awful lot of mileage by monopolizing the moral high ground. It is the sole force in American that favors the poor. The sole enemy of racism. The sole comforter of rape victims. The sole protector of defenseless Muslims. The sole guardian of the environment, and so on ad nauseum.

It all falls apart eventually — with friends like the left, nobody needs enemies. But often overlooked is that fact that it’s bogus from the start. Any prolonged glance at the left reveals it to be an ideology of power, its major tool violence, its goal revenge.

Leftism has always been about revenge. The works of Marx are filled with fantasies of retribution and judgment. Their tone reeks of resentment and paranoia, with blame cast for even the most trivial. “The bourgeoisie,” Marx once declared in a letter to Engels, “will remember my carbuncles until their dying day.” That’s leftism in a nutshell.

The Paris communards of 1870, the first instance of an actual leftist government-in-being, immediately began shooting bourgeois on taking power, giving full rein to the European hatred for the middle class that is all but incomprehensible to Americans. That practice has been repeated by every hard left government that has ever taken power — the USSR, communist China, Castroite Cuba, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, down to minor examples such as Bela Kun’s Hungarian “Regime of Light” (1919), which reintroduced the Roman practice of decimation.

This unvarying tendency toward atrocity suggests that all these regimes had something in common, and it’s not that they all suffered from boils. It’s the lust for vengeance — revenge for slights and crimes either real or imaginary, that can be found in every leftist from Nechaev to Bill Ayers. No less than Barack Obama spilled that when, his back apparently against the wall in 2012, he began ranting about “voting for revenge”.

This was displayed clearly enough this past holiday season.

First in the wave of bogus rape stories, brought up not to assure prosecution or to curtail such crimes, but solely as ideological weapons for use by feminists.

American leftism has always been about magnifying trivial complaints to serve as excuses for revolutionary action. The U.S. has never had a feudal system, nor a proletariat, nor any other conceivable reason for revolution. (German Marxist Werner Sombart pointed out in 1903 that the American masses already possessed what the left was promising them. His comrades badgered him mercilessly for this insight.) Instead we see trivia blown up to apocalyptic proportions — and nowhere less than in feminism. Betty Friedan hated the suburbs. Gloria Steinem served as a Playboy bunny and never got over the humiliation. They therefore set out to upend Western civilization by inflating these slights while millions of other women fastened on atrocities such as “the male gaze,” having doors opened for them, “manspreading,” and attempted pickups — or lack of the same.

The one actual atrocity available was rape, which feminists have utilized as heavy artillery — “all men are rapists”, “all sex is rape”, and the like. The latest barrage came from Tawana Dunham and Rolling Stone’s “Jackie.”

Dunham, the East Coast sophisticate’s 300-lb. “It” girl, claimed in a memoir that she had been raped by an infamous Republican while at college, while “Jackie” regaled Rolling Stone with a tale of gang rape at the hands of the always-reliable frat house.

Suffice to say not a single detail of either story help up. A “Barry” did attend Oberlin, and he was a power in local campus conservative politics, but he lacked a handlebar mustache and he’d never met Dunham. The fraternity in “Jackie’s” yarn threw no party the night in question, nor did she show any signs of suffering such an ordeal.

One of the grotesque aspects of this scandal is that nobody in the legacy media so much as alluded to the Brawley and Duke hoaxes, which in many ways were identical to these accounts. In the Brawley case a black teenage girl, afraid to return home after a late night out, claimed to have been raped by a gang of whites under degrading circumstances. A gullible media hooted the story to the skies, egged on by the “Rev.” Al Sharpton. In the Duke case, the entire lacrosse team was publicly indicted for the mass rape of a stripper brought in to entertain a stag party.

Both these stories began to collapse almost immediately, but proponents insisted it didn’t matter — white men had raped black women innumerable times before, so collective guilt demanded that someone be persecuted. As for Duke, lacrosse was an upper-class WASP sport, and the team deserved to be punished for that alone.

Dunham and “Jackie” would do well to contemplate the fates of the accusers in these hoaxes. Although Brawley’s champion Al Sharpton used the incident as his next step in clawing his way to the heights (if that’s the word) of MSNBC, Brawley herself today lives pseudonymously in Northern Virginia owing millions in legal fines. The Duke athlete’s accuser, Crystal Mangum, is serving hard time for the murder of a paramour.

Both Dunham and “Jackie” were looking for revenge for something — all that we know is that it wasn’t rape.

Even more serious — for the nation as a whole as well as those directly involved — is current racial unrest triggered by blatant attempts to manipulate racial tensions through the actions and rhetoric of Barack Obama and Eric Holder et al. Long-term efforts to decriminalize the actions of black lawbreakers, beginning with the Trayvon Martin incident and progressing to the Ferguson shooting, have dovetailed with several standard episodes of police incompetence in Cleveland and Staten Island to create as fraught a racial atmosphere as at any time since the late 60s. (So much for the “post-racial” president.) This culminated in the assassination of two police officers in Brooklyn by an unstable career criminal, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who had boasted on his Facebook page that he was out to avenge the Brown shooting by “giving wings to pigs.” (With the customary competence of the urban gangster, Brinsley shot not white officers but Wenjian Liu, an Asian, and Rafeal Ramos, a Hispanic.)

Here is a case where the leftist yearning for vengeance was reified by a maniac — a not at all uncommon occurrence. Their rhetoric and posturing brought their fantasies and desires for vengeance to life before their eyes — though certainly not in a way that they would have approved of, seeing as there can be little opportunity to exploit it. Whatever else he was, Brinsley is in no way a revolutionary hero.

The left’s entanglement with vengeance is easily understood — it has nothing else. Their messiah has failed to lead them into Eden — his policies, both domestic and foreign, have failed catastrophically one after another, leaving him nothing to show for six years as president and a nightmare gauntlet for the remainder of his term. His response — and the response of the left as a whole — amounts to little more than disjointed and incoherent actions. In the past six years, every last hope and dream of the left has been exposed — there is nothing left.

So what does the left have but vengeance? It got them this far — it will have to maintain them through the rest of Obama’s tenure, and beyond.

So it follows that we will see more of it over the coming two years. It could be argued, in fact, that a number of Obama’s recent actions amount to revenge. His immigration “reform” was punishment for a nation not worthy of him. His “opening” to Cuba acts as a punishment of Hispanics for letting him down in the midterms.

“Revenge is a dish best eaten cold”; “When seeking vengeance, be sure to dig two graves”. All the adages concerning revenge are cautionary. It’s something to be avoided, to left to fate or karma or the hands of the Almighty. This is not something to be overlooked, if the condition of Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum are any indication.

But the left will overlook it. They despise ancient wisdom and they don’t have an Almighty. That being the case, we should prepare for a parade of Trayvons and “Jackies”, Lenas, and Ismaaiyls.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_lefts_base_motive_vengeance.html#ixzz3Np0NHS9K
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Aim High OOT

by Macker ( 26 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John F. Kennedy, Military, OOT, Ronald Reagan, U.S. Air Force at October 5th, 2014 - 10:00 pm

Here’s the new US Air Force commercial….

Now, name the individual or individuals who are NOT in this ad! After completion, partake of The Overnight Open Thread!

The Clinton Hit List

by coldwarrior ( 181 Comments › )
Filed under Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, Politics at January 14th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Cross them at you’re peril!

Hillary and Bill Clinton compiled disloyalty ‘hit list’, new book claims

Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife ex-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attend the swearing-in ceremony of Terry McAuliffe as Virginia's governor in Richmond, Virginia in January.Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife ex-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attend the swearing-in ceremony of Terry McAuliffe as Virginia’s governor in Richmond, Virginia in January. Photo: Reuters

Washington: Hillary and Bill Clinton keep a detailed “hit list” of everyone who has crossed them during more than 20 years at the apex of American politics, a new book has claimed.

The list of so-called “sinners and saints” – including John Kerry, now secretary of state, and the late Ted Kennedy – was compiled on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in the dying days of Mrs Clinton’s failed bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

The alleged “cheat sheet” of betrayals – and there were many that year – ranked offenders on a scale from one to seven and was compiled by aides to give the Clintons an instant database of those who deserved political favour, and those who did not.

John KerryJohn Kerry: on the Clintons’ list. Photo: AFP. He SERVED in Vietnam.

“Almost six years later, most Clinton aides can still rattle off the names of traitors and the favours that had been done for them then provide details of just how each of the guilty had gone on to betray the Clintons as if it all had happened just a few hours before,” wrote the authors of HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton.


The Clintons have a reputation in Washington for long memories but the existence of a digital “favour book” raises questions about how Mrs Clinton, now 66, might conduct another run at the presidency in 2016. The book paints a picture of how wounding and dispiriting the 2008 campaign was for the Clintons as leading Democrats deserted them for Barack Obama, whose instant celebrity trumped years of hard networking and their own established pre-eminence as the most powerful double act in Democrat politics.

“The injuries and insults were endless, and each blow hurt more than the last, the cumulative effect of months and months of defections,” wrote the authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.

Among those rated as a “7” for most disloyal were Mr Kerry, who endorsed Mr Obama as a man who could “help restore our moral authority” and – even more devastating – Kennedy, who designated Mr Obama as the heir-apparent to his brother John F Kennedy.

Another huge betrayal for Mrs Clinton, as she ran to become the first female US president, was the decision of Claire McCaskill, a senior Missouri senator, to become the first significant female figure to endorse Mr Obama. Senator MacCaskill, who has endorsed Mrs Clinton for 2016, gave a television interview crediting Mr Clinton as a “great leader” before adding “I don’t want my daughter near him”, a remark that inspired rage among the Clintons and their aides.

Political strategists were divided over whether the portrayal of Mrs Clinton and her entourage as vindictive would damage her 2016 chances.

A Republican strategist who asked not to be named said the image was an obvious attack motif for Republicans in 2016.

“There’s a pretty solid understanding that you don’t mess with the Clintons because they are retributive, take a lot of stuff personally and will basically break your legs when you’re not looking,” he said.

Democrats were more sanguine, arguing that such political gossip was of interest to a only tiny class of political insiders and would have little impact on the campaign trail. “It may be titillating but it is not important,” a former staffer in the Clinton White House told London’s The Daily Telegraph. “But it is also typical of the way the Clinton operation has functioned in the post-presidency period. They have been vindictive and difficult.

“It’s the thing about the Clinton world that is the most dispiriting. It has always been baffling and troubling that they have operated with such a level of animus toward people that they should remain friends with.”

Clinton insiders told the authors it was wrong to paint Mrs Clinton as “Nixon in a pantsuit”, while another long-time adviser said it was “absurd” to suggest the Clintons’ decisions were ruled by a hit list, but did not deny its existence.